Majority judgment

Uses your system voice; voice and rate in settings.

Snapshot

≈ 3 min read

Names in other languages

No names in other languages are held for this entry yet.

Article bodies are English and are not machine-translated. A name in another language is not a translation of the article.

Majority judgment (MJ) is a single-winner voting system proposed in 2010 by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki. It is a kind of highest median rule, a cardinal voting system that elects the candidate with the highest median rating.

Majority judgment (MJ) is a single-winner voting system proposed in 2010 by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki. It is a kind of highest median rule, a cardinal voting system that elects the candidate with the highest median rating. ==Voting process== Voters grade as many of the candidates as they wish with regard to their suitability for office according to a series of grades. Balinski and Laraki suggest the options "Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject," but any scale can be used (e.g. the common letter grade scale). Voters can assign the same grade to multiple candidates. As with all highest median voting rules, the candidate with the highest median grade is declared winner. If more than one candidate has the same median grade, majority judgment breaks the tie by removing (one-by-one) any grades equal to the shared median grade from each tied candidate's column. This procedure is repeated until only one of the tied candidates is found to have the highest median grade. | align="right" |Left | |- | align="right" |Center left | |- | align="right" |Center | |- | align="right" |Center right | |- | align="right" |Right | |- |  |  |- |  | |} ==Example application== Suppose there were four ratings named "Excellent", "Good", "Fair", and "Poor", and voters assigned their ratings to the four cities by giving their own city the rating "Excellent", the farthest city the rating "Poor" and the other cities "Good", "Fair", or "Poor" depending on whether they are less than a hundred, less than two hundred, or over two hundred miles away: Then the sorted scores would be as follows: |- | align=right | Nashville | |- | align=right | Knoxville | |- | align=right | Chattanooga | |- | align=right | Memphis | |- |   |   |- |   | |} The median ratings for Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville are all "Fair"; and for Memphis, "Poor". Since there is a tie between Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, "Fair" ratings are removed from all three, until their medians become different. After removing 16% "Fair" ratings from the votes of each, the sorted ratings are now: |- | align=right | Nashville | |- | align=right | Knoxville | |- | align=right | Chattanooga | |} Chattanooga and Knoxville now have the same number of "Poor" ratings as "Fair", "Good" and "Excellent" combined. As a result of subtracting one "Fair" from each of the tied cities, one-by-one until only one of these cities has the highest median-grade, the new and deciding median-grades of these originally tied cities are as follows: "Poor" for both Chattanooga and Knoxville, while Nashville's median remains at "Fair". So Nashville, the capital in real life, wins. ==See also== Usual judgment Approval voting Range voting Voting system List of democracy and elections-related topics

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1360763371 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.

Sources cited in this revision

Extracted from the cited revision's reference blocks; absent citations are not invented.